Would an AWB be good?

.
Would a Federal AWB (Assault Weapons Ban) be good for the 2nd Amendment?

Because it could be the perfect vehicle to send to the Supreme Court for a victory for the 2nd Amendment?

Also, would it ever get to the SCOTUS?

.

If you enjoyed reading about "Would an AWB be good?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!

General Geoff

November 1, 2008, 12:36 PM

Largely depends on whether the law would be deemed unconstitutional. Strictly speaking, according to the Heller ruling, yes such a ban would be considered unconstitutional so long as the new AWB affected guns that are "in common use." Is a semi automatic rifle in common use by citizens of the United States? I'd say yes. But I don't have any numbers with which to back up this claim.

As for whether it would get to the Supreme Court, that depends on whether any lower court struck it down. I'm not sure the opposition wants a repeat of their humiliating defeat via Heller. But then again, if they did remain stalwart and appeal up to the Supreme Court, it's anyone's guess if we could maintain our one-judge advantage.

JWarren

November 1, 2008, 12:57 PM

How long was it on the books before the DC handgun ban was challenged?

I don't have that kind of time.

Besides, the Clinton AWB got put on the books in 1994 and was never deemed unconstitutional by any SC challenge.

I am afraid that if an AWB gets on the books, it not be challenged and/or it will take a LONG time to overturn.

In short, it is never a good thing to have our freedom taken away so that we can GET it BACK. The only answer is to draw the line. Not one more step backwards. Ever.

-- John

RockyMtnTactical

November 1, 2008, 01:05 PM

I say no. Never. We were extremely lucky that the first one sunset without any kind of renewal... Now the dems are getting even more power not just with the presidency, but with congressional seats...

ants

November 1, 2008, 01:13 PM

Better for 30 to 60 million American gun owners to band together and direct Congress to avoid a nationwide assault weapons ban, rather than welcome an assault weapons ban and challenge it in the Supreme Court.

The Heller vote was only 5 to 4. That's skin-of-the-teeth territory. If a Democratic president puts just one more anti-gun judge on the bench, a Supreme Court challenge would be devastating for gun rights.

jakemccoy

November 1, 2008, 01:19 PM

It's a long shot to expect the SCOTUS to overturn such a law. SCOTUS would be contradicting the U.S. Congress and the President of the U.S.A., not just DC legislators from decades ago. Also, it would take longer and be even more difficult to conjure up the perfect storm of facts.

A lot of gun owners would like to see it happen, but nobody would actually want to get involved. For whoever is actually in the middle of that fight, the fight would be taxing and would take years off their life.

I wonder how many federal laws (e.g., United States Code) the SCOTUS has found to be unconstitutional. I can’t think of any off the top of my head without researching. That’s not saying much, but one would think I could think of at least one.

MGshaggy

November 1, 2008, 01:26 PM

Besides, the Clinton AWB got put on the books in 1994 and was never deemed unconstitutional by any SC challenge.

True, but Penn arms and Navegar/Intratec (maker of the Tec-9 and Tec-22) challenged the law in federal court in D.C. on various grounds and lost. The SCOTUS issued a short written opinion in which it denied cert.

I LIKE IT!

November 1, 2008, 01:44 PM

No. HELL NO!

It's funny how Nobama uses local cities and STATE governing as his basis of reasonable gun laws while claiming he won't take your gun then propouses a FEDERAL ban under the guise of the AWB(semi-auto) as reasonable. :fire:

One way or another the fascists in government must be stopped from destroying the fabric of this great nation.

Ethereal

November 1, 2008, 01:59 PM

If the supreme court's decision on the Heller case was any indication, it wouldn't be shot down after the fact going off their statement that an all out ban would be unconstitutional, but certain "regulation" is perfectly fine. That sums up to me that while an across the board ban would be unlikely the legislation to ban certain types of firearms is perfectly reasonable to most judges and governing authorities. Also the vote on the Heller case was 5-4 in favor of striking down the ban; hardly a win really for the 2A in my eyes. Best advice is not to push your luck with thinking that it'll any AWB would be temporary in the eyes of SCOTUS and at this point an inch could turn into the neverending highway of gun control.

Zoogster

November 1, 2008, 01:59 PM

The SCOTUS barely ruled in our favor 5-4.

A new AWB if challenged and appealed would not make it before the Supreme Court for many years. By that time the new president will have appointed some new justices.
The Supreme Court can also choose whether it ever even wants to hear a case. So they can choose to never hear it even if it does get appealed all the way to them.

So if we barely got a 5-4 ruling that we have the individual right to keep and bear arms, and some of those 5 are likely to be replaced potentialy by Obama (who will favor a leftist judge, and has himself supported every single gun control measure ever proposed, which is public record.)

So you can do the math. It would not be good.

meef

November 1, 2008, 02:05 PM

Would a raging case of perpetual hemorrhoids be good?

I consider both questions to have equal merit.

:cool:

slide

November 1, 2008, 02:36 PM

There is nothing in Heller which would make a new AWB ruled Unconstitutional even if ruled on by the Heller court. Also if the Court ruled against a new AWB, it'd make a foundation for likewise ruling the NFA Unconstitutional - something none of us will live long enough to see (sadly).

I'm sure the nature of the AWB being an extension of the NFA isn't lost on the SCOTUS so this is one we win in Congress or lose forever.

chris in va

November 1, 2008, 02:40 PM

Because it could be the perfect vehicle to send to the Supreme Court for a victory for the 2nd Amendment?

From what I understand, a couple SCOTUS justices are about to retire and may be replaced with less 2A friendly judges.

I LIKE IT!

November 1, 2008, 04:29 PM

All we need to do is convince the commies in government that if they try to pull some B.S. like the AWB agian that we the people will be forced to hit the reset button.

The threat of splitting from the union and loss of taxpayers is proabley the only thing that will sway them away from another AWB.

I just hope we as Americans are still up to paying the price for freedom.

MikePGS

November 1, 2008, 04:58 PM

Would it be good if they temporarily suspended your ability to breath, presuming that you know in the future you might get it back if a majority of 9 famously fickle individuals decided to "give" it back to you?

jakemccoy

November 1, 2008, 05:13 PM

I really wish we could work into our culture a new name besides "Assault Weapon". How often are these guns used for assault by law-abiding gun owners? How about we use "Efficient Firearms" or something else? Or perhaps lets refer to ALL guns and knives as assault weapons so that the name becomes substantially meaningless. If we keep "Assault Weapon" in any law, there's no way the SCOTUS will ever find such a law to be unconstitutional simply because of the damn name alone!

slide

November 1, 2008, 05:29 PM

WE didn't name firearms we use often for target only (such as the Pardini target pistol) assult weapons. The promoters of gun bans such as Biden did. The media went along.

Here we use the term to mean weapons which are in the first wave of the new bans if the Democrats gain power in both branches of government.

CRITGIT

November 1, 2008, 06:18 PM

Keep bashin' that one particular party...That'll pay big dividends over the next eight!:eek::rolleyes:
Better educate and recruit rather than bash and alienate....and fast!

CRITGIT

buzz_knox

November 1, 2008, 08:18 PM

Keep bashin' that one particular party...That'll pay big dividends over the next eight!

You can educate and speak the truth at the same time. And it's not bashing to refer to gun control and Democrats in the same sentence. Of the two dominant parties, only one has gun bans as a plank of its national platform. Glossing that over does nothing but constitute a lie by omission that will mislead some into thinking supporting that party isn't the same as supporting that plank.

mljdeckard

November 1, 2008, 08:41 PM

Which increment in incrementalism is 'acceptable'?

Heller was good reasoning, good judges, good timing, and a LOT of good luck. Just remember how long it took to get to the SCOTUS, and how long it had been since the LAST major 2A case.

I do not share in the current reasoning that Obama winning means everything falls apart in four years. HE has to be careful with HIS timing too. They could ramrod through, say, a new assault weapons ban, watch all the challenges go through, and the year it's being considered in the lower courts, Obama loses reelection, two supreme court justices are replaced by conservatives, and the new court decided that 'assault' weapons are indeed in common use. It would be just as hard for them to stage a favorable ruling as it was for us to get Heller.

No one here is suggesting we get complacent. But this election is going to be FRIGHTENINGLY close, no matter who wins it. They will IMMEDIATELY have to start proving themselves. Congress has a NINE PERCENT approval rating. New gun laws is NOT what we want to see to start liking them again, and they know this. It's not just Heller. It's the protection from third party lawsuits, that 40 of 50 states are 'shall issue', and that public opinion is on our side. If you win by fooling 'enough of the people at the right time', it is disingenuous to immediately start doing all the things you said you wouldn't do in your campaign, lest they not get fooled again for the SECOND term. THEY KNOW, that the single biggest factor in the upheaval of 1994 was the Clinton AWB. When they get the hat trick and control everything, they don't want to throw it away AGAIN on such a hot-button issue.

I personally think the odds of Obama getting a second term AND keeping control of Congress to be pretty much impossible. I think he's promised so many things to so many parties with such an empty bank account, he will gloriously implode. He's Jimmy Carter, but remember, WE SURVIVED Jimmy Carter.

Rshooter

November 1, 2008, 08:46 PM

Educate? How can you educate people who spread propaganda like "Ask the parents of your children's friends if they have a gun in the house. If so it is not safe for them to to play there." Liberals spread misinformation and fear, Obama is the second most liberal lawmaker in the Senate according to his voting record. Do the math, mobilize now or lose your rights.

JWarren

November 1, 2008, 08:53 PM

I personally think the odds of Obama getting a second term AND keeping control of Congress to be pretty much impossible.

I think that an Obama presidency gives credibility to the Mayan Doomsday Prophecy.

They predicted that December 21, 2012 is the big day. That's about a month after we all vote for or against "The Boss" again.

:what:

-- John

RP88

November 1, 2008, 08:54 PM

it'll probably take ten years to get to the supreme court, where it could lose badly for all we know.

I'm going to go with a 'no'. A SCOTUS win will have better long-term security, but the most important fight will be year-to-year with the anti-gun sponsors. If it can be made into law, then it can be justified as remaining so. There is no reason to deprive ourselves for ten years (or more) for something that we may never be able to get back.

And as for the next 4-8 years, I'm sick and tired of talking about it. I'll have my guns, and I'll be writing my congress people. Obama can't draft bills, but his congress friendlies can.

wally

November 1, 2008, 10:26 PM

I drive a Hybrid, would $10/gal gas be good?

I don't think so!

--wally.

jakemccoy

November 1, 2008, 11:44 PM

WE didn't name firearms we use often for target only (such as the Pardini target pistol) assult weapons. The promoters of gun bans such as Biden did. The media went along.

Here we use the term to mean weapons which are in the first wave of the new bans if the Democrats gain power in both branches of government.

Whatever the explanation, we should work on changing the terminology if possible. Words are EVERYTHING when it comes to legality. I know it's wishful thinking, but just imagine if the term "Assault Weapon" were "Efficient Firearm" or something like that. Our fight would be easier. When it comes time to draw a line in the sand for guns, it all comes down to primitive perception, no matter how cleverly we frame the arguments.

Tommygunn

November 1, 2008, 11:47 PM

Words are EVERYTHING when it comes to legality. I know it's wishful thinking, but just imagine if the term "Assault Weapon" were "Efficient Firearms" or something like that. Our fight would be easier. When it comes time to draw a line in the sand for guns, it all comes down to primitive perception.

I've heard this before. I respectfully disagree. To a point, when we use words, we should use technically accurate words -- that's fine.
Our opponents are devious and ruthless, and imaginative, and I don't think that words matter a great deal. They don't like the idea we have firearms, ands wish to remove them. Nullify one tactic .... fine. They'll simply switch to another.
In a sense, were trying to get the toothpaste back in the tube here.

evan price

November 1, 2008, 11:49 PM

Would temporarily doubling the income taxes be good? What if it were "Only temporary"??

jakemccoy

November 1, 2008, 11:54 PM

I've heard this before. I respectfully disagree. To a point, when we use words, we should use technically accurate words -- that's fine.
Our opponents are devious and ruthless, and imaginative, and I don't think that words matter a great deal. They don't like the idea we have firearms, ands wish to remove them. Nullify one tactic .... fine. They'll simply switch to another.
In a sense, were trying to get the toothpaste back in the tube here.

You're allowed to disagree, of course, but you're incorrect.

You just proved the main problem with "Assault Weapon". You, a gun owner, have been conditioned to think that "Assault Weapon" is technically accurate. It's not. That's my beef.

There's a video floating around the Internet that steps through how there's no meaningful technical difference between so-called "Assault Weapons" and certain other guns that are not considered to be AW. I'll try to find the video.

Saying that words don't matter is more than a little naive. Every SCOTUS case is, in part, a battle over semantics. So, words may not matter to you, but they do to the SCOTUS and a whole bunch of other important institutions.

Tommygunn

November 1, 2008, 11:56 PM

It's not accurate, and I know that; but that's not my point. I don't think coming up with nice sounding words for them is going to help, is all.

jakemccoy

November 2, 2008, 12:07 AM

Come on. Changing the terminology would help at least a little. When my gun ignorant friends hear "assault weapon" they instantly think "Columbine" and "Virginia Tech".

I had one guy go off on a tirade about how "we don't need those black assault weapons that Cho and those dudes from Columbine had". Don't try to make sense out of his response, it was completely unorganized and emotional.

Tommygunn

November 2, 2008, 01:01 AM

It might help a little with friends and associates who are not gun savvy, but IMHO it will have no effect whatsoever on the antigun politicians who will try to disarm us through one method, or another.
The kind of guy you're talking about -- the guy ranting against Cho -- who didn't us any "assault weapons" and who was entirely emotional -- he won't be persuaded at all. In fact, He's exactly why I think your idea is not effective.
Look, I'm not against trying. If you want to do it, fine.
The only way I see us winning is to defeat the antigun politicians at the polls. We seem to be SOL this cycle, given what the polls are saying atleast.
You won't be hurting anything atleast ... I just hope it's not all you're doing.

Kind of Blued

November 2, 2008, 01:19 AM

It depends on who you ask.

If you are a law-abiding American who thinks the Constitution is more valuable than a piece of toilet paper, NO.

If you're a career criminal who depends upon defenseless victims to make ends meet, YES.

If you're a government official who needs your subjects defenseless so that you can pursue your political agenda, YES.

jerkface11

November 2, 2008, 01:44 AM

Keep bashin' that one particular party...That'll pay big dividends over the next eight!
Better educate and recruit rather than bash and alienate....and fast

So opposing a party that supports gun bans is too divisive? Maybe we should all hold hands and sing coom buy yah?

RonE

November 2, 2008, 01:53 AM

An assult weapons ban would not do us any good at all, it could only get worse. It would drive up the price of used AR and AK type guns and perhaps reduce the price of ammo for them.

This is a case of having to write (with pen and paper) and mail (with envelope and stamp) your representative and congressman and your state legislatures too. Signing an on line petition just don't get the job done, neither does email.

Kind of Blued

November 2, 2008, 01:57 AM

It would drive up the price of used AR and AK type guns and perhaps reduce the price of ammo for them.

How would it reduce the price of ammo?

Also, it could be much worse than raising the price of ARs & AKs. It could effectively make them "Not for sale at any price" unless one wants to break the law.

slide

November 2, 2008, 10:24 AM

Whatever the explanation, we should work on changing the terminology if possible. Words are EVERYTHING when it comes to legality. I know it's wishful thinking, but just imagine if the term "Assault Weapon" were "Efficient Firearm" or something like that. Our fight would be easier. When it comes time to draw a line in the sand for guns, it all comes down to primitive perception, no matter how cleverly we frame the arguments.

When you get your job at the NYT, you can start making these labeling changes. Until then, the MSM will use the most inflammatory language it can to push forward its left wing agenda. Haven't you noted that nobody is 'shot' any more? Or killed or wounded? They are all 'gunned down' implying the gun got annoyed at made an unprovoked attack on an innocent.

I salute this Board for promoting a clean and sane image of firearms enthusiasts but doubt that the MSM would care or separate us here from the dirtiest criminal element - because it suits its agenda to group us all in a lump. Yet, Jake, I'll play along. Why not suggest an alternate name for the weapons which will be banned by the next AWB or were banned by the last.

MD_Willington

November 2, 2008, 11:22 AM

No it would not be good.

SCOTUS, well the other guys could always "stack the deck" and it would still be bad or go to worse...

caseypj

November 2, 2008, 02:23 PM

Sure, if you enjoy incrementalism. First, it will be "Assault Rifles", then it would be "Sniper Rifles", then it would be "Semi-automatic Machinegun rifles", then "Combat Shotguns", and finally it would be "Dangerous Handguns".

leadcounsel

November 2, 2008, 02:45 PM

NO, NO, NO.

Heller was a close call that went our way.

If Heller was a deplorable gang-banger or otherwise undesireable, the lower court or the SCOTUS may have refused to side with him.

We had a great fact pattern in Heller. Future cases may not be so compelling.

We also have a favorable SCOTUS compostition. It may not be so favorable next time.

M203Sniper

November 2, 2008, 04:00 PM

The best we can hope for is that the bad economy keeps the Democrats jumping for a few years and stays in the toilet long enough to balance the powers that be.

Defending the Bill of Rights starts with killing the corruption in our government.

Huddog

November 2, 2008, 09:13 PM

No. Especially if Obama wins and then gets to appoint a justice or three.

22-rimfire

November 2, 2008, 09:35 PM

Not a good idea at all. Time is in their favor. Not ours.

slide

November 3, 2008, 09:19 AM

No. Especially if Obama wins and then gets to appoint a justice or three.

...and a solid Democrat Senate which will rubber stamp his far left choices. Well, no sense in worrying now. The results are baked in. I don't know if Obama will win, but IMO, the die is cast. We just don't know the outcome but it's too late to affect it.

ccsniper

November 3, 2008, 09:41 AM

does anybody on here believe in revelation, the last book of the bible? just wondering. i think that no matter what we do, or how many voters disagree with what the congress do, they will do it anyway. gun control has never been about the guns. just like our congress vote to give themselves a pay raise, they will vote on stuff we dont like or need or want just to give themselves power.

jr45

November 3, 2008, 10:23 AM

I had one guy go off on a tirade about how "we don't need those black assault weapons that Cho and those dudes from Columbine had". Don't try to make sense out of his response, it was completely unorganized and emotional.

Totally agree. If/when we get another tragedy like Virginia Tech, I am sure the anti-gun agenda will move up fast as a priority for congress.

tinygnat219

November 3, 2008, 10:25 AM

It's good for business as people like you and me, anticipating a ban, will go and buy up all kinds of guns.

jakemccoy

November 3, 2008, 02:33 PM

It might help a little with friends and associates who are not gun savvy, but IMHO it will have no effect whatsoever on the antigun politicians who will try to disarm us through one method, or another.
The kind of guy you're talking about -- the guy ranting against Cho -- who didn't us any "assault weapons" and who was entirely emotional -- he won't be persuaded at all. In fact, He's exactly why I think your idea is not effective.
Look, I'm not against trying. If you want to do it, fine.
The only way I see us winning is to defeat the antigun politicians at the polls. We seem to be SOL this cycle, given what the polls are saying atleast.
You won't be hurting anything atleast ... I just hope it's not all you're doing.

My emotional friend and the anti-gun politician you mentioned are not much different. It's just that the politician looks more sophisticated and keeps emotions in check, while writing bills and voting in accordance with the politician's emotional reaction to guns. It appears that you may think of the anti-gun politician as someone who's meticulously stepping through arguments and procedures to push an anti-gun agenda. That may be the appearance on the surface. Underneath, it's more likely that the politician is a gun-ignorant person who approaches gun issues primarily from an emotional perspective.

jakemccoy

November 3, 2008, 02:39 PM

When you get your job at the NYT, you can start making these labeling changes. Until then, the MSM will use the most inflammatory language it can to push forward its left wing agenda. Haven't you noted that nobody is 'shot' any more? Or killed or wounded? They are all 'gunned down' implying the gun got annoyed at made an unprovoked attack on an innocent.

I salute this Board for promoting a clean and sane image of firearms enthusiasts but doubt that the MSM would care or separate us here from the dirtiest criminal element - because it suits its agenda to group us all in a lump. Yet, Jake, I'll play along. Why not suggest an alternate name for the weapons which will be banned by the next AWB or were banned by the last.

Wow, dude, what was the purpose of that speech? It's like you're mad at me for trying to make a positive change. Did you even read my post that you criticized? I suggested a name already.

By the way, if we massively refuse to accept the label AW, then the name can change. As a practical matter, such refusal can start on the floors of the U.S. Congress. How pathetic can we be as a group? We have allowed gun ignorant people to create names for the tools that we, the experts, use. It should be the other way around.

M203Sniper

November 4, 2008, 12:55 AM

As a side note;

i was listening to the http://gunrights.us/ Podcast (http://gunrights.us/) and the host mentioned something about firearms labels. Calling an AR a sporting rifle....If I can find a text link I'll post it. :)

Found it here; http://www.gunlaws.com/politicallycorrect.htm

Interesting reading.
Part One -- The Concept

Certain words hurt you when you talk about your rights and liberties. People who would deny your rights have done a good job of manipulating the language so far.

Without even realizing it, you're probably using terms that actually help the people who want to disarm you.

To preserve, protect and defend your rights in the critical debate on where power should reside in America, you need effective word choices. Try out some of the ideas in this chart the next time you deal with this subject.

Then just give it a rest and watch where it goes. You'll hear their litany, replete with flaws. Don't rebut, seize the moment, listen hard and learn -- then just raise an eyebrow and think, "How 'bout that. Feller doesn't even own a gun. It takes all kinds." Then talk about something else. And boy, does the disjoint hang in their craw.

RX-178

November 4, 2008, 01:42 AM

There IS one AWB that would be good in the long run, but over the course of many years, it'd cripple the gun industry before it crippled anti-gun legislation.

It's that one that these 4 congressmen (Republicans, at that) keep putting together year after year after year ever since 2004, and it keeps getting sent to a committee where it dies without a second thought (and I don't predict it will be any more successful even with an Obama presidency).

It basically bans BY NAME every single firearm you could think of, unless it's made under an order by the federal government or military. They pass that, and it's guaranteed to be struck down as unconstitutional, and will cripple any other bill of its like forevermore.

But nobody's ever going to sign that ridiculous proposal into law, not even Obama.

Surefire

November 4, 2008, 08:17 AM

Heck no.

The surpreme court will get more extreme-left additions at the first chance, under this administration.

When the surpreme court goes from slightly right to left, such a law would likely NOT be overturned.

JWarren

November 4, 2008, 08:47 AM

Heck no.

The surpreme court will get more extreme-left additions at the first chance, under this administration.

When the surpreme court goes from slightly right to left, such a law would likely NOT be overturned.

Exactly.

Let us not forget that Heller was won by a 5-4 margin.

Let us thank our lucky stars that the case was brought when it was. Does ANYONE think that this would go the same way after a BHO administration appoints Supreme Court justices?

The Presidency is one thing. The real dangers are the Judicial Branch and the Legislative Branch, in that order.

Sure, an AWB may not occur soon. But you know what? Supreme Court appointments set the stage for legislation for years into the future.

And THAT is our real threat.

-- John

usmarine0352_2005

November 4, 2008, 11:03 PM

.

Well, I guess we may find out now. Obama has been elected president.

We may find out how many anti-gun measures can be enacted in 4 years.

I certainly hope we don't though.

Also, people talk about which SCOTUS judges maybe replaced, and they pick the oldest two who are both anti-gun, so they say it can't be too bad of a trade off. But you never know, one of the pro-2nd amendment judges may have a stroke or whatever else and need to be replaced first.

.

slide

November 5, 2008, 10:23 AM

Obama is heavily beholden to unions and trial lawyers. That implies that he'll nominate judges which are tilted toward that bias which doesn't necessarily mean anti-gun. It is possible that a judge may be pro union, pro abortion, pro trial lawyer but not anti gun as well. We can hope.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow

November 5, 2008, 12:20 PM

No! Remember, the "conservative" judges in Heller sold us out by saying something to the effect of "reasonable restrictions are ok", which more or less eviscerates the right from the get go. I would rather them have said, "Nope the 2A means what it says", and then Kennedy flies the coup on getting the majority and we lose 4-5 - let's have the revolution and get it over with already, rather than slowly becoming the boiled frogs here. The 4 stalwart (so-called) "conservative" justices are actually contributing to the problem by placating us to become slowly boiled until it's too late, instead of fighting the good fight, losing, but at the same time rousing the populace to revolt as we should. We'd have been much better off in the long run had they turned up the heat on us, stirring us to JUMP out of the pot!

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow

November 5, 2008, 12:23 PM

Obama is heavily beholden to unions and trial lawyers. That implies that he'll nominate judges which are tilted toward that bias which doesn't necessarily mean anti-gun. It is possible that a judge may be pro union, pro abortion, pro trial lawyer but not anti gun as well. We can hope.

While that is theoretically possible, do you know any judges like that? :uhoh:

Funderb

November 5, 2008, 12:28 PM

[QUOTE]It's a long shot to expect the SCOTUS to overturn such a law. SCOTUS would be contradicting the U.S. Congress and the President of the U.S.A., not just DC legislators from decades ago. [/QUOTE

That is why they are there!

If you enjoyed reading about "Would an AWB be good?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!